Live data from Hacker News

Why the NRA hates smart guns

techcrunch.com

231–240 of 315 posts

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite bizarre logic for someone with that handle. Are you really implying that the great majority of guns were not designed for killing?

The "designed for" argument always struck me as odd. Who gives a half toss what it's "designed for", when what it's used for in the real world is what actually matters?

Just to be clear, I don't have an argument. I am just a curious observer who's trying to follow and make sense of what's being discussed here.

However, since you brought it up, do you have issue with 'smart guns' given that apparently most guns are purchased only to ever be used at ranges?

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly, and the primary purpose of a computer is not for causing damage to people and/or property. I find the argument that a gun is not primarily designed for causing harm to be disingenuous.

One could argue that many innovations in computing were funded directly by those with the need to harm people.

Great comment and it goes aptly with your username.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#233
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where they basically gave up ground and got nothing in return What would they get in return? The absolutist/fundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not admit of compromise, and sets up a world view in which compromises and "reasonable middles" cannot exist; from that stance one either wins completely or loses completely, which is not coincidentally the rhetoric often used to work supporters up into a…

What would they get in return? The right to own new machine guns made after 1986, and aren't additions before that that are not already in the pool of 200,000 forbidden? Nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, like with drivers licenses. Related to the above, enforcing shall issue concealed carry on the entire nation. Removing the many state restrictions on magazine size, and against "assault weapons", which the Cong…

You forgot silencers.

Heck, flip the law around as is done in some countries: require them, or at least require that they be provided with all new guns. It's a health and safety measure to prevent hearing loss.

BTW, the problem is the name. Silencers don't actually silence. Pretending that they do is feeding the idea that they are for assassinations.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not "implying" it, I'm explicitly stating it. If guns are "designed for killing", why is only one out of 10,000 used for that purpose in a typical year? Can you think of another example of a consumer product that's "designed" for a particular purpose that has that low a rate of actual utilization for that purpose? Most successful defensive gun use incidents don't involve anyone even getting shot, much less killed…

Why did you put designed in quotes? Look - if you like guns, just say you like guns. People are allowed to like guns. But, throwing around an illogical argument as a logical one isn't going to help in persuading people - well, at least not people who follow logic.

Ostensibly because they're arguing about the weight and intent of the word, "designed". People saying guns are "designed to kill" are attempting to elicit an emotional response that mirrors their own in a fallacious appeal to emotion. No matter their design, guns have use beyond killing humans, and even beyond hunting.

Take a knife, for example - designed to kill. Small knives, big knives, single-purpose knives, ceramic knives, and even customizable knives. Cutting living things kills them, so knives are "designed to kill". While not as destructive as guns, they account for a non-negligible ~12% of the annual murder toll. Knives even cause way more serious non-fatal injuries per year than guns, but you don't hear anyone bleating "DESIGNED TO KILL" about them because they're mostly not scary.

I like guns, and most of mine _are_ actually designed to kill living beings: animals I am legally authorized to shoot. For 51 weeks of the year I shoot what averages out to 2-3 rounds per day per gun at paper. I do it with my family, my friends, and when I need to settle my nerves and meditate after a rough day. One week a year, I shoot the given gun once, maybe twice. I would argue that while their design certainly involves killing, their purpose to me is practicing fine motor skills and concentration, with an ancillary effect of giving me the excuse to go hiking for a week and put meat on the table for a large portion of the year.

As far as smart guns go, it doesn't matter what the use of the gun is. It's an ineffectual feel-good measure that will primarily affect law-abiding citizens. Hell, that's why gun control is such an issue - because most gun owners fall extremely deeply into the "lawful" D&D dimension. If we didn't care, you could pass whatever laws you like and we'd ignore them, but we don't like falling afoul of laws, intentionally or not.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#235

I wouldn't say "hate", as it is too strong a word. But smart guns have the same problem as self-driving cars: they take control from you and transfer it to unknown actors (a random computer programmer? Clueless legislators? Various three-letter government agencies?) Conversely, anti-gun folks and self-driving car proponents consider guns and cars too dangerous to be left in hands of _those people_. Those a better lef…

> Those a better left in hands of experts, they say. Not sure about guns, but your average driver is definitely not an expert in operating their car. Hell, the widespread rejection of the opinion of experts is a part of the driving culture (speeding, ignoring traffic laws). When it comes to cars, I'm totally willing to trust that (not so) "random programmer" over an average person.

Speeding is not rejection of the opinion of experts.

Speed limits are normally set low to appease the locals, who get to vote and who care most about one particular place, rather than those passing through.

It's a NIMBY problem. Most of us want to go places quickly, but don't want fast/dense traffic through our own neighborhood.

We also don't get bothered when the local cops earn a living from ticketing people from out of town. Those out-of-town people of course don't get a say in local policy, just as we don't get a say in the fact that we get ticketed in the other towns.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. My question is simply: what is the thing they would like to gain ? The NRA's modern reinterpretation of the Second Amendment (and make no mistake: they are pushing a modern invention, not a historical understanding) does not appear to allow the possibility that any compromise would be reasonable. Hence anything which is not a complete and utte…

Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment. It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are ins…

I believe that the Second Amendment provides no guarantee whatsoever of an individual right to own firearms. And given what we have in terms of historical documents and commentaries about it, it's pretty clear that the intent was to create a collective right for purposes of protecting the well-established militia system of the time.

So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you feel is being infringed? If there really is a possibility of compromise, then why is even the tiniest hint of the possibility of a suggestion of perhaps trying to implement a sensible background-check and registration system guaranteed to stir up such disgusting rhetoric from the allegedly "reasonable" people who oppose it? It's gone far beyond just basic hyperbole like claiming that any regulation actually consists of outlawing and confiscating all guns from all people (though that's still a popular one), and well off the deep end into suggesting that the murders of children have been faked by paid actor "parents" in order to give support to the gun-confiscating plan.

Again: it's very very clear what the proposal from those folks is, and it's all-or-nothing with no compromise possible.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent said guns were made primarily for causing harm. This is beyond any doubt historically and presently. The parent said nothing about ammunition. Although, ammunition is most certainly made to facilitate the purpose of guns. So, yeah, they're definitely manufactured to enable causing harm [with a gun]. Targets shot, be they human, animal, or inanimate, most certainly are harmed/destroyed in a very real and un…

I'm going to flatly state that while I currently live in a relatively high crime area I do not carry any weapons, firearms or otherwise, on me at any time. I do not harbor any kind of action hero revenge fantasies and my first choice when ever I have been faced with the prospect of physical violence has been to try and deescalate the situation followed by attempting to flee. I will also add that I spent a good part o…

I rarely speak about my childhood or private life. & by rarely, I mean never, unless it's the nice stuff. I guess that ends today.

I was born & raised in & around Los Angeles. My parents were pregnant before graduating high school with my older sister. 15 months later, I was born. The family was all-American, all-military. Air Force. Dad worked for his dad in a print shop. Mom worked in a nail & hair salon. They offered us the best they could. I learned at a young age what bankruptcy was, & the impact it had on adults who were struggling to keep their heads above water.

My earliest memory is walking out of our apartment in Canoga Park to find my mom's car up on blocks because someone stole the wheels & tires off her little Mazda. I think I was around 3. Years later, I was still squeezing my now-6-foot-tall self into the back seat of that car. There was a lot of violence & crime in Canoga Park.

But that was child's play, & nothing compared to the violence in my home.

Until I was nearly 11, my father was an uncontrollable force of violent rage. The kind that results from a severe chemical imbalance, not the alcoholic kind--I've seen alcohol pass my dad's lips maybe 3 times in my whole life. He never touched the stuff. Never touched drugs. Never even smoked a cigarette. He was a gym rat, & an enormous man. Lucky for me, though his massive hands were rarely quiet, I was not the target. My mother, on the other hand, learned to take her hits well--both from life & from him.

My earliest memory of a firearm was the one I saw my father point into my mother's face. I was about 5. We'd just moved into a new home they had built. My sister & I watched in horror from the hallway as he pressed the muzzle into her face. My sister, just 6 years old, ran into the room & began yelling at him to stop. Terrified, I hid behind one of those tall floor speakers that were so the rage at that time. Shaking uncontrollably, I couldn't help but peek out from behind the speaker, just waiting for the gun to go off. Words I do not recall were yelled at my sister, & she went scurrying back down the hallway. She & I were like twins. & twins stick together. I overcame my petrifying fear & ran back down the hallway after her. We went to my room. She was never very good at thinking through anything--still isn't. She was unbelievably good at simply acting with no thought of consequences. I, however, was always the thinker. Hiding in my room with my sister, away from the horror unfolding in living room, I was able to think. We grabbed my [other] infant sister, & I kicked screen out of my bedroom window--oh, praise the southern Californian ranch-style, single-level homes!--so we could escape the house. We ran from the house, trying to find a neighbor with a phone. We hadn't really learned about 911 as I recall, or perhaps we were just scared to fucking death, & couldn't recall the digits. My sister & I discussed how we needed to call my uncle, the only other bodybuilding man we knew who was even bigger & stronger than our massive dad. But we did not know his phone number. At this point, my memory gets pretty hazy. I cannot for the life of me remember how we wound up back inside the house. But we did. My mother somehow talked my father into leaving the house--and the gun. While he was gone, we rode with her in that shitty little Mazda some distance away. We thought we were leaving--it would have probably been the dozenth time I could remember. I realized we weren't when my mother pulled up to a dumpster behind a store, & I watched her throw the gun inside. She was, of course, punished pretty severely when my father found out.

From age 5 to 10, living in that house my parents built that my father so routinely did his best to destroy, my father worked in the valley. He would stay close to work Mon-Thur, & only come home Fridays for the weekend. So, it was basically 5 years of 4 days of peace with a mother who grew increasingly hardened, & a father who'd come home just as we were all feeling relaxed to fuck that all up for 2 days & 3 nights. Of course, I never had the slightest idea that in many ways, he simply couldn't help it--and please don't misunderstand that statement as being any kind of excuse for his behavior.

When I was 10, in the 7th grade--I skipped from 3rd to 5th grade--we moved to a new house. I began to learn very quickly about gangs. I knew kids with guns at school. Kids had no shoes because they'd been stolen while walking to school that morning. Same with jackets in the winters. I learned to identify the kids in my schools who were involved in gangs. I learned how to keep my ears open & pay attention to what was around me. I still got the shit beat out of me from time to time. I learned not to be afraid of any single one of these fuckers, & they knew they had to knock me out to shut me up because I wasn't going to back down just because some punk or bully was wearing colors. I also learned about crooked cops. They were everywhere. Oh, there were definitely some good ones to be found. But at 35, I still eye every cop with suspicion. I can't recall a time since I was about 8 that I felt police were a friend of the community.

With a military family, it was inevitable I would learn to fire guns. Everyone in the family had them. I learned to take them apart, clean them, & rebuild them by the time I was 10. I began shooting them when I was about 12. I've fired many. I don't own a single one, & I probably never will. First impressions stick harder than anything else.

It was during this time my father swallowed a bottle of pills. He'd apparently had enough of himself & couldn't cope anymore. The pills were supposed to help him somehow find balance. Instead, they drove him way over the edge into what I assume he thought would be the eternal arms of endless rest.

He failed. I was made to visit him in the hospital. My mom brought my sisters & I to see him and, sitting in a cold room at a table, I saw my father cry for the first time. I hated him for it, & refused to allow him any of my sympathy. I became a little terror for a while. I kind of checked out emotionally & mentally. School, which had always been an effortless straight-A achievement, took a nose-dive. Suspensions. Cut classes. I'd leave school part way through the day & walk miles back home, coordinating my arrival with when the buses dropped my sisters off.

As my 11th birthday approached, I recall a clear, radical thought: I simply couldn't keep looking to my parents for answers. They were a fucking mess, & barely able to take care of themselves. If I was going to figure out how to navigate life & the world around me, how to not let my life so far have any chance at fucking me up, I was going to have to start tackling it on my own. So, that's what I did. I started reading everything I could get my hands on. The Bible. History. Science. Math. Literature. Philosophy. I began to learn the contours of what I could get away with, & what would make my parents' eyebrows raise. I was looking for something, anything tied to something stronger that could pull me ashore. I found that in knowledge, education, studying, questioning everything I was told, interrogating everything--including myself--to discover just what it was made of.

When I was 17 & learning how to drive, my dad told me he was proud of me for the first time I could recall. Like, a genuine moment I could tell he was facing the fact that I'd just told him & my mom I couldn't stay at home anymore & had to go. I nearly drove the car off the road as, for the first time in 6 years, I teared up & began crying. We were both choked up, & I tried--as I usually do in difficult situations--to lighten the mood by joking that was one hell of a way to risk our lives.

That bottle of pills was my dad's salvation. He was never the same after that. He never raised his hands again. He was transformed. He's such a different person in many ways today because of that moment. I'm proud of him for eventually finding a way out of the darkness. Sadly, he's never been able to forgive himself, even though my sisters & I most certainly have. Some years after my sister & I moved out of the house, my mom told me that he spent almost every night of that first year we were gone crying himself to sleep. In his mind, he's never really stopped being that monster he was before he tried to die.

That bottle of pills was my salvation. I was never the same after that.

---

So, random internet stranger, I am not the product of an extraordinarily privileged life. Except that I was born white. & male. & had a computer at 8, which was the luckiest break I ever had (after being white & male). I never thought growing up that I would ever make it to being 20 years old.

And no, random internet stranger, what I said was neither naive nor paternalistic. Nor is it borne of some sociopathic level of delusion. That you are offended by someone taking a strong stance against violence of all forms is for you to own. We don't have to agree, but please do yourself & everyone else a great favor by not thinking you could possibly ever definitively & accurately intuit someone's personal background on the basis of their comments & the positions they take on things.

I recognize precisely where my privilege lies. I have long known of its existence, before it even became popular to talk about privilege. That you imagine a life of posh privilege as being the life that would cause a person to take a firm position on something shows only a gaping lack of imagination on your part.

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent said guns were made primarily for causing harm. This is beyond any doubt historically and presently. The parent said nothing about ammunition. Although, ammunition is most certainly made to facilitate the purpose of guns. So, yeah, they're definitely manufactured to enable causing harm [with a gun]. Targets shot, be they human, animal, or inanimate, most certainly are harmed/destroyed in a very real and un…

Knives, baseball bats, bows, darts, and even arguably dogs were all originally made primarily for causing harm. With the exception of dogs they're almost invariably manufactured to enable causing harm. Some have had other uses developed after the fact, but they cause harm and destruction in very real and undebatable physical ways, often in their day-to-day use. Does that mean we vilify their ownership and gradually m…

You're accusing me of advocating things I have not. I did not in any way billing gun ownership. Nor did I in any way suggest we should eliminate "a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded".

Re: Why the NRA hates smart guns

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment. It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are ins…

I believe that the Second Amendment provides no guarantee whatsoever of an individual right to own firearms. And given what we have in terms of historical documents and commentaries about it, it's pretty clear that the intent was to create a collective right for purposes of protecting the well-established militia system of the time. So, given the lack of support for a guaranteed individual right, what exactly do you…

You presume I must agree with your selective interpretation of historical writings as viewed by you through your own personal filter, because for you, your interpretation is the only logical conclusion. Since that is so firmly settled in your mind I see no use in further arguing that point.

The problem is that you keep talking about compromise and an all-or-nothing attitude, but ignore the fact that gun owners have bent over backwards over the past century and you offer nothing but more limitations. How, exactly, is that compromise? Imagine this conversation:

  Lion: I want to eat you
  Gnu: No
  Lion: Fine, let me bite you
  Gnu: No
  Lion: Be reasonable, compromise with me here - let me nibble one of your legs, you have four.
  Gnu: You've already eaten my cousin and sister, and I like all four of my legs just the way they are, thank you.
  Lion: Being alive provides no guarantee whatsoever of a right to four legs.  Your four legs make me feel unsafe, you could kick me. I insist you let me have one.
  Gnu: No, I'm just fine the way I am.
  Lion: You just have an all-or-nothing attitude, all I'm trying to do is be sensible here.  I need to eat so I can hunt you next week.
  ...
As noted in other threads nearby and easily verifiable by yourself, every 20th century and later civilian disarmament (save one) has been preceded by no-negotiation registration. Since most people I speak with that advocate gun control also advocate eventual complete disarmament as the end goal, why would I believe something different would happen?

As far as "sensible background checks" go, they already exist. You already cannot own a firearm if you fit a fairly broad list of disqualifiers, and attempting to buy a weapon at a licensed dealership and undergoing the already compulsory (if inaccurate and problematic) check will result in your wasting $20 and going home empty-handed. The "sensible" most people seem to be attempting to espouse today is reaching into private activities. If my father wishes to give me a gun that has been inherited over 3 generations, why must we go to the gun shop and pay them $20 to tell him he can? Why would I agree to risk a felony charge by loaning my brother a rifle for his two-week hunting trip without a $20 visit to the gun store?

"But the gun show loophole" you might say - if a licensed dealer sells an individual a firearm without undertaking the proper background check, they should lose their license. That's my opinion. If a private citizen sells another private citizen a firearm without undergoing a background check, nothing has changed or will change that. All you're doing is putting already extraordinarily lawful citizens in yet greater jeopardy of committing a felony.

Other than our fundamental disagreement about the Second Amendment, I perceive a core issue here: gun control advocates fail to take criminals into account. Criminals don't buy guns at gun shops that run background checks, they don't register them (ask California and Chicago), and they illegally modify guns (removing serials and shortening weapons). No proposed measures (even complete disarmament) would put even a dent in that, and criminally-owned guns are disproportionately represented in firearm crime.

So what, exactly, do you propose registration and further background checks would solve, and what assurance can you offer that civilian disarmament is not the end goal of all involved?

Post reply on HN